Len Wiseman
Ballerina

Just a little was needed to disrupt a miraculous and precarious balance like that of "John Wick," but in the case of "Ballerina," we cannot certainly speak of nuances determining its failure. Set between the third and fourth chapters of the main saga, the film attempts to expand the narrative universe by introducing a female protagonist.

Directed by Len Wiseman, it bets heavily on star Ana de Armas, forgetting all those details that made Chad Stahelski and Keanu Reeves' works so enjoyable and lasting. Because it would be very naive to think that "John Wick" works well solely for the gunfights and brawls. A superficial reading that seems to be precisely that of the director who, let's be honest, is not one of Hollywood's great signatures.

The first twenty minutes are enough to start doubting. Eve Macarro's work is a coming-of-age novel that reeks of clichés at every turn. From the violent death of the father to the strict discipline of the Ruska Roma (a banal dance academy and factory of killers), we see images on screen that do not shift our imagination by a centimeter and are thus revealed to be useless. Not a single original touch in the staging, the vision is missing. A more elliptical choice in this sense would have been much wiser; instead, Wiseman wastes a good half hour this way.

But if we talk about direction and style, criticism can be extended to most of the film. Wiseman's aesthetic and cinematic vision has nothing to do with Stahelski's acrobatics. If you take away the properly done shots from "John Wick," it's no longer "John Wick." But there's more: the entire corollary of aesthetic scenarios (labyrinthine environments, neon lights, staircases, libraries, and countless other places for brawling) barely withstands, as if through an initial effort of imitation.

We have the villa at the beginning, gloomy and austere, the nightclubs (but nothing particularly beautiful to see), and the snow-covered village of the final part. However, there is a lack of desire to care for every single frame and to transform every single fight and shooting sequence into ultra-pop choreography. Wiseman simply can't keep up, and in the end, he lets himself go to several standard scenes that further weaken an already fragile plot.

But the real mistake of "Ballerina" is another. The films of the main saga were based on fundamentally ironic and paradoxical tones, which made them enjoyable and provocative. Now, however, the killer no longer kills to avenge her dog but her father: end of the fun. There, an absurd pretext opened up a remarkable and brilliant story. Here, the aim is for easy emotion, extinguishing any provocation.

If we then add Ana de Armas's "big eyes with tears" acting and a story written hastily, one can easily understand how the "aura" effect of the franchise quickly vanishes.

The storyline is so generic and bland that, in comparison, the action sequences seem like the winning aspect of the film. It speaks of tribes and cults, of betrayals and revenge in absolutely coarse terms. But the errors in cinematic grammar are everywhere, starting with casting choices: there is no charisma in the new faces, and even de Armas doesn't seem to have been fully valued.

There's much talk about her having performed in all the action scenes without the help of stuntmen: can I say I would have preferred stunts to have more spectacular sequences, leaving de Armas more energy for acting? I don't care how you do it, cinema is what appears on the big screen for me. And I see only uninspired sequences, along with a protagonist who gets beaten up all the time but only has a few minor cuts on her face.

The supporting characters are really poorly utilized. The villain lacks grip and even the small good ideas (I won't spoil anything) are handled with little intelligence. The finale with a triumph of flamethrowers gives a good idea of the film's stature and the director's aesthetic ideas.